"I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most . . . of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the climax, for each and every one of you. So vote for Jeff for A. S. B. vice-president - he'll never come between you and the best our high school can be.”- Matthew Fraser
A student, Matthew Fraser, delivered a nomination speech for a student election that used "elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphors" during his speech in front of 14 year old students, and teachers. According to the school, this went against the Disruptive- Conduct Rule. They ended up suspending Fraser from school for three days, and took his name off of the speakers list. Fraser and his parents believed that he should not have been punished for what he said in his speech, and that his name should be put back on the speakers list.
Fraser's father filed a suit in Federal District Court saying that there was a violation of his son's First amendment, the right to freedom of speech. The court agreed with Fraser and his parents, and said that the "school's disruptive- conduct rule was unconstitutionally vague and overboard." The supreme court disagreed and said that the school punishing the student the way they did was completely acceptable, and that the Federal District Courts ruling was wrong. The Supreme court said,
" The Court, referring to these remarks as "obscene," "vulgar," "lewd," and "offensively lewd," concludes that school
officials properly punished respondent for uttering the speech. Having read the full text of respondent's remarks, I find it
difficult to believe that it is the same speech the Court describes. To my mind, the most that can be said about
respondent's speech - and all that need be said - is that in light of the discretion school officials have to teach high school
students how to conduct civil and effective public discourse, and to prevent disruption of school educational activities, it
was not unconstitutional for school officials to conclude, under the circumstances of this case, that respondent's remarks
exceeded permissible limits."
The Majority view of the case was that it was offensive and vulgar, and it made girls and teachers very uncomfortable. Fraser and his parents on the other hand thought that the speech was acceptable and was not offensive and shouldn't have made anyone uncomfortable, and that the school was over reacting.
The speech was given on April 26, 1983.It was argued on March 3, 1986, and the courts decision was on July 7, 1986.
"I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most . . . of
all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it
in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives hard,
pushing and pushing until finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the climax,
for each and every one of you. So vote for Jeff for A. S. B. vice-president - he'll never come between you and
the best our high school can be.”- Matthew Fraser
A student, Matthew Fraser, delivered a nomination speech for a student election that used "elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphors" during his speech in front of 14 year old students, and teachers. According to the school, this went against the Disruptive- Conduct Rule. They ended up suspending Fraser from school for three days, and took his name off of the speakers list. Fraser and his parents believed that he should not have been punished for what he said in his speech, and that his name should be put back on the speakers list.
Fraser's father filed a suit in Federal District Court saying that there was a violation of his son's First amendment, the right to freedom of speech. The court agreed with Fraser and his parents, and said that the "school's disruptive- conduct rule was unconstitutionally vague and overboard." The supreme court disagreed and said that the school punishing the student the way they did was completely acceptable, and that the Federal District Courts ruling was wrong. The Supreme court said,
" The Court, referring to these remarks as "obscene," "vulgar," "lewd," and "offensively lewd," concludes that school
officials properly punished respondent for uttering the speech. Having read the full text of respondent's remarks, I find it
difficult to believe that it is the same speech the Court describes. To my mind, the most that can be said about
respondent's speech - and all that need be said - is that in light of the discretion school officials have to teach high school
students how to conduct civil and effective public discourse, and to prevent disruption of school educational activities, it
was not unconstitutional for school officials to conclude, under the circumstances of this case, that respondent's remarks
exceeded permissible limits."
The Majority view of the case was that it was offensive and vulgar, and it made girls and teachers very uncomfortable. Fraser and his parents on the other hand thought that the speech was acceptable and was not offensive and shouldn't have made anyone uncomfortable, and that the school was over reacting.
The speech was given on April 26, 1983.It was argued on March 3, 1986, and the courts decision was on July 7, 1986.
Links:
http://firstamendmentfacts.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/bethel-school-district-v-fraser/
http://sites.google.com/site/supremecourtcasedatabase/bethel-vs-fraser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser